Socialists are unsuitable for government

It’ s now (2017) been a century since the Russian revolution (1917, duh), and still some people (pardon: humanoids) dare to promote the ideology. This means that they have zero historical awareness.
Or if they do, that they are deluded in thinking that they are able to solve the unsolvable problems with socialism.
Or they only pretend to be able to, without actually planing to go through with it, but they plan on abusing the power once have it.
Either way, that’s not somebody one would wish to have in power.


Another joy of private property

Thids ppstvis a follow up to:

If environmental activists are really so concerned about protecting public land from the president’s greedy cronies, the should champion that all land becomes private property. One can’t really complain about what the president does to state monuments, like enabling oil exploration, because it is HIS land.
If you wanna protect the national monuments, buy them, before explorers discover oil there and the price rises. When they’re your private property, you decide what does and does not get done there.
Si, shut up about Trump letting “his buddies in the oil industry” ruin public lands, because there is no such thing as public lands! When the government owns it, they can do to it whatever they want. So long as, once every 4 years, they pretend to care about the people, by holding elections (and lying to their faces – the pinacpe of democracy)


Since in communism, there were no prices (because the state owned and thus made everything) ( ), there was no way to distribute scarce resources like food. Socialistic solution: appoint rations, each month giving the party elite 4 kilograms of meat and 4 kg of fish. The chiefs of Russian police, too. After all, those are the most important people in a socialist system. More important than the Russian workers, who only got about 2 kg of rotten fish,every month.
That is equality under socialism. A system that is imposed from the top down will always give perks to the ones at the top. Since all the world’s socialism has been imposed, it is always top down, and never equal.
There was no private property (private fishing boats, farms), which would have allowed that farmers / fishermen to distribute (sell) the food to those who were willing to pay the most for it. If a chief of police is hungrier than a worker, then the chief of police should offer to pay more. If the food is rotten, nobody will be willing to pay for it (except perhaps an entrepreneur who found a way to make money from compost). This is the only wsyto achieve anything resembling a just distribution

Antifa is a greater threat than actual fascism

The “Anti fascistische Aktion” movement is a greater threat than actual fascism is, or ever was. This is easily true, because fascism (Mussolini’s regime) never amounted to much – apart from being rather unpleasant to Italians and Ethiopians. Apart from the war with Ethiopia, Mussolini’s foreign ambitions were: (dare I say it) modest. True, there was the attempt to invade Greece, but that attempt failed. It took the nazis to show the fascists how it was done and to demonstrate the truism that all invasions succeed; national defense is impossible.
So fascism is not a big threat at all, yet #Antifa makes it out to be the worst thing to have happened to mankind. The fact that those howler monkeys invented a threat where there is none, makes them particularly dangerous. They’d impose all sorts of burdens on the world, in order to protect it againstthe hortors of fascism. So they terrorize the people with the full approval of their own conscience; meaning they will not let up, even try to rstchet up.
Driven by their genetic preprogramming to howl at the air around them, they continue to make up excuses to continue to howl, inventing more justification for the #terror they unleash on the world.
Antifa behave exactly like the phenomenon they protest against. But don’t expect them to start protesting against themselves. Because that would be, like, not-hypocritical (and thus,not done).

Why proper socialism (communism) can never work, pt2

The future must be anarchocapitalist. The nation states can’t continue on. They’re self-destructive: politicians, once they’ve got the taste of power, will always spiral out of control. So the future is either anarchist, or it’s dead. Let’s stay positive and go for the living option: the future’s anarchist.

The question remains: which flavour? The pure, 100% anarchist kind (anarcho-communist, or ancom), or the more pragmatic kind (allowing private property, and employer/employee relationships; anarcho-capitalist, or ancap)? Since private property is inborn into all live; live that spends finite resources to acquire items like a nest to breed in, young as a result of satisfaction of hormonal urges (a biologist might say to the reason beings have those urges (Richard Dawkins famously wrote a book about genes wanting to be reproduced), I disagree with that, because the urges are simply there, they may result in certain effects, but that does not mean that those urges/the hormones that drive them, are sentient, goal oriented beings), etc. Think of a toddler that has found a toy. It may be a sharp toy, but it will dislike having it taken away nonetheless. Children will fight over who gets to play with a particular toy, when the floor is covered in unused toys.

Thus private property, is the perfectly standard mode of natural affairs. The only way to keep people out if doing that is by having a big, evil, aggressive, coercive government apparatus. So, the USSR is the inevitable outcome of socialism, utterly negating the concept of anarchism. (No-ruler-ism).

This means that all anarchism,will be ancapism or it will simply not be anarchism (and be hell on earth instead). I think the definition of anarchism should include a reference to the NAP, since anarchism means nobody tells you what to do, so long as you don’t aggress on them.
Also, ancapism is the only way to ensure environmental protection: since when the last few rhinoceroses are privately owned, people will want to view them, touch them, and pay good money for the privileges, the money can be used to finance the upkeep of the magnificent beasts, and to feed the owners as well (and his staff). Meaning the owners will want to protect their investment. And so work to ensure survival of the species, for the love of money.

Look at two species of animal: the aforementioned rhino and the cow. Cows are financially useful, so the species is maintained. Rhinos are not allowed to be the property of anyone because that dishonors the glorious creatures. So they are threatened with extinction on a continual basis. Because nobody feels compelled to endure their safety. The measures to stop poachers are inadequate, because there is no sufficient incentive to stop them.

If there are more than enough rhinos left alive to form a credible breeding population, the funding may also come from hunting permits.

Quick, the economy is down, waste money on (space) tanks

The Keynesian fallacy that spending borrowed money is a good way to get out of an economic slump keeps being proposed by Keynesians.
But it makes me wonder: what do we do about the slump caused by the borrowing (and having to pay back the interest& the principal)? It might be better to prevent the slump in the first place, so stop messing with the currency supply. Devaluating it, in order to pay back the borrowed money.
Instead of roads to nowhere, Paul Krugman has proposed to veign alarm of an alien invasion, to stimulate spending on weapons of destruction (whether mass, or individual). While it may be true that such spending gets the economy out of a slump for the time being, it sets up the following slump. By requiring that a government steals more money (raises taxes) and spends less.
The latter is a good thing, of course, but only if preceded by less taxation.
What is wrong with “defense” spending? (Apart from it always being offensive spending) The fact that destructive spending always ends up costing money, and not yielding income. Aka it is unproductive. Meaning all the money spent on it, has now disappeared from the wealth ever available on earth.
When those roads / space ships / weapons have been built, nothing can be built with them, only unbuilt (destroyed). A road that goes from somewhere to somewhere else can serve to transport goods or people between the places. A gun can only be used to steal stuff from someone, this someone will either:
die, or
steal from someone else in a spread-the-poverty kind of system, or:
retalliate, making everyone worse off.

What drives government?

I firmly believe it’s not greed or capitalism that drives governments, but rather mental sickness (you have to be pretty out of it, when you decide it’d be a fun & good idea to tell millions of others what (not) to do; that can’t be healthy)
If it were greed & #capitalism that drives the world’s #politicians, then they’d have quit by now, because where this planet is heading, is not profitable for anyone.
It appears to be a global phenomenon that politicians have trned against their life blood: the people.
The only ones still claiming that it’s greedy capitalism, that’s ruining the world, are socialists. Socialism is the penultimate goernment ideology (it can’t exist without one, and: judging by the collapse of the USSR, it also can’t exist WITH one.) Since socialism is the embodiment of sadism, socialists deliberately don’t look beyond the superficial excuses to blame greed, because that would mean they mght have to blame themselves.